Share this story

Today, SpaceX attempted a critical test of its ability to launch humans to orbit: the ability to get them away from the rocket if things go wrong. Shortly after liftoff, the company shut down the main engines of its Falcon 9 rocket, and fired off the system that's meant to return the crewed capsule safely to Earth.

Everything about the flight appeared to have worked just as planned. The Dragon capsule accelerated away from its Falcon 9 launch vehicle, oriented properly, deployed parachutes, and splashed down successfully.

Getting a capsule gently off a rocket in the midst of what might be a catastrophic failure is (as you might imagine) not a simple task. Engines on the capsule have to fire with sufficient power to cause the capsule to accelerate away from a rocket that may still be accelerating itself, all without subjecting the crew to excessive forces. Once free, the capsule has to jettison its service module, and then be oriented so its parachute systems can be deployed safely. Those parachutes then need to make sure the return to Earth's surface is equally gentle.

For the Dragon capsule, the engines that pull the capsule away from the rocket are a set of eight SuperDraco thrusters, arranged along the top of the craft. Parachutes are present in the craft's nose. All of the systems have been tested individually, but this was the first time their coordinated action was tested under flight conditions. The test occurred shortly after a point in the flight called "Max Q," where aerodynamic stresses on the Falcon 9/Dragon are at their peak, less than two minutes into the flight.

Enlarge/ The view upwards from the Dragon capsule as its chutes deployed.

The loss of the capsule and its aerodynamic surface destabilized the Falcon 9, which tumbled and exploded shortly afterwards. But the capsule was well clear by this point. Shortly afterwards, video feeds showed the Dragon service module, which supports and powers the capsule during flight, being ejected. Roughly five minutes into the flight, the smaller drogue parachutes deployed to keep the capsule oriented as it started its descent. Once the capsule was about two kilometers above sea level, the four main parachutes deployed and gradually expanded. Just over nine minutes after its launch, the Dragon capsule settled gently onto the surface of the Atlantic.

SpaceX had boats in place to handle the recovery of the capsule, but cut away from its coverage rather than showing this activity.

The test was an essential part of SpaceX's efforts to certify the Falcon/Dragon system for human use. The company is engaged in a race with Boeing for being the first to send a crewed mission to the International Space Station. Assuming there's nothing about the data obtained during the test that suggests caution, a crewed flight will be the next step.

A press conference is schedule for later this morning; we'll update this story if any significant information is revealed there.

Sunday, 1pm ET Update: There were a lot of happy faces in the NASA press conference, with Elon Musk saying that things "went as well as we can possibly expect." NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine called the test "another amazing milestone." Bridenstine went on to say that the abort was smoother than expected in terms of the forces registered, which gives NASA even more confidence in the hardware.

Musk noted that the wind conditions at the landing site were rather high, which may allow them to expand the conditions where they consider landings. He also said that the company was considering using the nets it uses for recovering fairings to help cushion the landing further and help keep the hardware out of the salt water.

The outstanding question is when NASA will be ready to place crew on board the Dragon. Musk said that the hardware should be ready to go by late March, putting SpaceX on track for a launch for the second quarter of this year. But Bridenstine said that NASA has to consider crewing the International Space Station, and thus when to fit the Dragon launch into the larger activity schedule in orbit. So, no word yet on when the launch might be.

Today I watched this test as a thrilled boy of 60 - with my wife and kids, and felt myself tear up. This is the best of our species - and what a necessary and welcome antidote to the venal imbeciles inflicted on us by that lowest of all callings, politics.

(And as someone who used to get thrown out of perfectly serviceable aircraft as a young man, I watched those chutes deploy and thought: "Wow".)

So basically SpaceX had to make its launch system fail in order to make NASA assured that it worked?

If they made the manufacturers of ground vehicles bought by the US government pass similar tests before they would purchase them, DC bureaucrats would be using horses to commute between offices. If planes certified for passenger transportation, including AF-1 747s had to pass similar tests, they couldn't.

WTF happened to the test pilots the US used to have testing and developing aircraft, that now our EXPERIMENTAL flight programs have to be proven safe beyond reason before crewing them? No wonder NASA didn't make a single advancement in manned space flight for 2 human generations until SpaceX forced it upon them. NASA is managed by CYA cowards.

If Elon Musk is going to get a manned colony established on Mars before all NASA's launch facilities are under water, he's going to have to bypass NASA somehow.

If I were paranoid about bureaucracies, I'd suspect one of the unannounced purposes of the "Space Force" was to be able to stop (US) unapproved orbital launches that could endanger government's stranglehold on manned extraterrestrial facilities by any means necessary, including storming facilities (violating posse comitatus) and downing experimental non-commercial civilian aircraft.

Do you have any idea how many cars are crashed into oblivion in order to be licensed for sale in the US? It's more than a few.

To be fair, a lot of simulation is done on the screen to predict how the structure will handle a collision. If your simulations are good enough (they usually are) then you only have to run an actual test once. But you still have to prove it out, no “simulations are enough” like Boeing wants.

Once per orientation, right? So that's like 6 or 8 tests total minimum per car?

I believe that is only about an actual flag though. Wearing something with a Stars and Stripes motif (like the socks or the Bikini) or something with a drawing/picture of a flag on it doesn’t fall afoul of that.

Watching the Demo-1 flight, during first stage ascent, the capsule hit a maximum acceleration of about 21.5 m/s/s, or about 2.2 G.

The launch abort, according to the press conference, pulled Dragon away from the Falcon 9 at an acceleration of about 3.5 G.

So, yes, even in the unlikely event that the Falcon 9 engines cannot be shut down by the abort sequence, Dragon will still be fine.

Also keep in mind that the Dragon can accelerate fast enough to generate over 6 G if necessary, per Musk at the news conference today.

Off the ground, sure. But at Mach 3 or 4 into dense atmosphere?

That's what Musk said at the news conference best I can recall Also, at the altitude they were at the air is far less dense that at sea level. I could be misunderstanding your point. Wouldn't be the first time LoL.

Watching the Demo-1 flight, during first stage ascent, the capsule hit a maximum acceleration of about 21.5 m/s/s, or about 2.2 G.

The launch abort, according to the press conference, pulled Dragon away from the Falcon 9 at an acceleration of about 3.5 G.

So, yes, even in the unlikely event that the Falcon 9 engines cannot be shut down by the abort sequence, Dragon will still be fine.

Also keep in mind that the Dragon can accelerate fast enough to generate over 6 G if necessary, per Musk at the news conference today.

Off the ground, sure. But at Mach 3 or 4 into dense atmosphere?

That's what Musk said at the news conference best I can recall Also, at the altitude they were at the air is far less dense that at sea level. I could be misunderstanding your point. Wouldn't be the first time LoL.

The test today was at max drag so that would be the hardest to pull 6 g's. So if Must felt D2 could have reached 6 g's today then I guess it can do that at all stages of flight.

Of course, what's the point of sizing the SD's so you can do 6 g's if NASA is only going to let you do 4? Is that just margin in case one of the engines fails and the other side has to throttle down to compensate? That would put you at 75% thrust.

Watching the Demo-1 flight, during first stage ascent, the capsule hit a maximum acceleration of about 21.5 m/s/s, or about 2.2 G.

The launch abort, according to the press conference, pulled Dragon away from the Falcon 9 at an acceleration of about 3.5 G.

So, yes, even in the unlikely event that the Falcon 9 engines cannot be shut down by the abort sequence, Dragon will still be fine.

Also keep in mind that the Dragon can accelerate fast enough to generate over 6 G if necessary, per Musk at the news conference today.

Off the ground, sure. But at Mach 3 or 4 into dense atmosphere?

That's what Musk said at the news conference best I can recall Also, at the altitude they were at the air is far less dense that at sea level. I could be misunderstanding your point. Wouldn't be the first time LoL.

Yeah, what rocket with people inside the payload will hit Mach 3 or 4 and be in 'dense atmosphere' ? Which part doesn't belong and why?

I bought 15 pairs so there is no problem pairing them*. I call them my patriotic socks.

*even with the mass purchase scheme they still clump into all lefts and all rights. Go figure.

(Narrows eyes) Was this a political satire joke? I can't tell.

flag etiquette says that the US flag should never be allowed to touch the ground. I don't know if that applies to anything that simply has a US flag motif. might still be seen as crass.

now, taking an actual flag and wearing it like a cape or something, that'll get a negative reaction.

Nah people drape the flag and run around in Olympic stadiums all the time.

As for the socks, don’t worry, they are precious to me, I only let them touch clean floor. Outside there are shoes between them and the ground. Also, they are socks not an actual flag. Still anyone caught burning my socks will not experience a friendly reaction.

Watching the Demo-1 flight, during first stage ascent, the capsule hit a maximum acceleration of about 21.5 m/s/s, or about 2.2 G.

The launch abort, according to the press conference, pulled Dragon away from the Falcon 9 at an acceleration of about 3.5 G.

So, yes, even in the unlikely event that the Falcon 9 engines cannot be shut down by the abort sequence, Dragon will still be fine.

Also keep in mind that the Dragon can accelerate fast enough to generate over 6 G if necessary, per Musk at the news conference today.

Off the ground, sure. But at Mach 3 or 4 into dense atmosphere?

That's what Musk said at the news conference best I can recall Also, at the altitude they were at the air is far less dense that at sea level. I could be misunderstanding your point. Wouldn't be the first time LoL.

The test today was at max drag so that would be the hardest to pull 6 g's. So if Must felt D2 could have reached 6 g's today then I guess it can do that at all stages of flight.

Of course, what's the point of sizing the SD's so you can do 6 g's if NASA is only going to let you do 4? Is that just margin in case one of the engines fails and the other side has to throttle down to compensate? That would put you at 75% thrust.

Someone --- I think it was an uncle --- told me that cars have speedometers that go to 200 km/h (120 mph) because a car with a capability of going 200 km/h, even if that capability's never used and is never even supposed to be used, is unlikely to be unduly stressed by years of going 100 or even 120 km/h.

I'd imagine it's the same thing. The fact that they have the capability of accelerating you at 6G means that they're less likely to fail when going 4G.

I can't imagine it has anything to do with SpaceX's initial concept of using the SuperDracos for propulsive landing, as you'd want to use a lower acceleration for that use case, not a higher one.

I'm more and more wondering what the astronauts are thinking about Starliner, with all the trouble that Boeing had and still thinking an IFA isn't necessary. I mean, relying on simulations and then screwing up your unmanned ISS flight with a wrong timer AND only two of three parachutes opening is not exactly inducing confidence in their simulations or hardware preparations and procedures.

I'd really hope NASA will require Boeing to do an IFA test -- not to see Boeing dragging their first crewed flight out even farther but to make sure that I don't have to see something going wrong during a crewed mission.

I’m sure NASA couldn’t require an IFA under the terms of their contract. But they ARE Boeing’s customer, and if they want to commission an IFA under a separate contract, I’m sure Boeing would be happy for the extra work. I don’t know if NASA would need Congressional authorisation for extra testing outside of the scope of CCrew, but it would be more money for Boeing, and Congress historically is pretty ok with that.

Thanks for the really cool shot! If that had been the SLS, Boeing and NASA would have said it was not just successfully returned to earth, but had been extremely successfully disassembled at no extra cost to the taxpayer. And even if Shelby had been aboard, he would have still been back controlling the pork the next day.

Someone --- I think it was an uncle --- told me that cars have speedometers that go to 200 km/h (120 mph) because a car with a capability of going 200 km/h, even if that capability's never used and is never even supposed to be used, is unlikely to be unduly stressed by years of going 100 or even 120 km/h.

Horsepowers in even modest cars have skyrocketed in the past 20 years. If a modern car can only go 200kph, it's probably because it's artificially governed to less than that. A car's top speed is just the point where it has no excess power. If you're not at top speed, you can still load your car's engine and drive train to its limits by using that excess power to accelerate, and doing so will put just as much wear on most of your car's components.

A well deserved pat on the back for SpaceX, but will they attempt this more than once before sending humans up? I would think multiple tests would be needed.

If said in anything like a serious manner, please pause to consider the cost of this test. Hardware alone they just blew up around $50 million and it's only SpaceX who could get it that cheap. Then there's the thousands of people working on monitoring and supporting it and the surrounding zone before you get to multiple layers of other costs.

Considerably more than that. You've disposed of a trunk. The SDs are single use, and disposed of once they're exposed to salt water. The Dragon structure itself might be used on a future CRS2 mission, if NASA allows it.

SDs are not just single use, they can be reused if they are kept out of the water. Musk wants to catch Dragon in the fairing nets.

That was the biggest surprise from the coverage today.

I'd be very suprised if NASA were happy with any plan to catch crewed dragons with nets, at least not with an absolute shed load of further work to demonstrate it was as safe as ditching in the drink.

My understanding is that it was the extra work and testing required by NASA that led SpaceX to abandon propulsive landing and go for the water landing.

Depending on the pace of cargo missions, they may be able to do the required testing with returning cargo Dragons. If they can assure NASA that a net recovery mishap won't result in a loss of return cargo, NASA will probably allow net tests for at least some of the returning capsules. The problem there is that a less than perfect recovery may result in an unusable Dragon.

The two things that surprise me most about this idea is that Crew Dragon is heavy, and they've already had problems with the arms on the existing nets.

Also, the capsule parachutes will be even less steerable than the fairing's, so recovery will be even more difficult.

So basically SpaceX had to make its launch system fail in order to make NASA assured that it worked?

If they made the manufacturers of ground vehicles bought by the US government pass similar tests before they would purchase them, DC bureaucrats would be using horses to commute between offices.

Does the phrase 'crash test dummy' mean anything to you? For every model of car on the road, a dozen or so have been carefully crashed to check that they crash safely before the model is approved for sale.

And SpaceX offered it this way. Boeing went the other route and tries to get the certification by simulating the abort and showing certifications of the affected subsystems.

I know which path has my sympathies.

To paraphrase one of my favorite expressions, in simulation there is no difference between simulation and practice. In practice there is.

The last two CST-100 tests are perfect demonstrations of that. I am sure both simulated just fine.

So basically SpaceX had to make its launch system fail in order to make NASA assured that it worked?

If they made the manufacturers of ground vehicles bought by the US government pass similar tests before they would purchase them, DC bureaucrats would be using horses to commute between offices.

Does the phrase 'crash test dummy' mean anything to you? For every model of car on the road, a dozen or so have been carefully crashed to check that they crash safely before the model is approved for sale.

And SpaceX offered it this way. Boeing went the other route and tries to get the certification by simulating the abort and showing certifications of the affected subsystems.

I know which path has my sympathies.

To paraphrase one of my favorite expressions, in simulation there is no difference between simulation and practice. In practice there is.

The last two CST-100 tests are perfect demonstrations of that. I am sure both simulated just fine.

One very rarely simulates forgetting to insert a pin into the parachute hardware.

Depending on the pace of cargo missions, they may be able to do the required testing with returning cargo Dragons. If they can assure NASA that a net recovery mishap won't result in a loss of return cargo, NASA will probably allow net tests for at least some of the returning capsules. The problem there is that a less than perfect recovery may result in an unusable Dragon.

The two things that surprise me most about this idea is that Crew Dragon is heavy, and they've already had problems with the arms on the existing nets.

Also, the capsule parachutes will be even less steerable than the fairing's, so recovery will be even more difficult.

Not sure about that last bit; the problem with catching fairings is that the fairing itself acts as a wing with similar abilities to generate movement as the steerable parachute trying to guide it down. In contrast: even with the non-steerable chutes on top; Dragon flies like a brick.

Depending on the pace of cargo missions, they may be able to do the required testing with returning cargo Dragons. If they can assure NASA that a net recovery mishap won't result in a loss of return cargo, NASA will probably allow net tests for at least some of the returning capsules. The problem there is that a less than perfect recovery may result in an unusable Dragon.

The two things that surprise me most about this idea is that Crew Dragon is heavy, and they've already had problems with the arms on the existing nets.

Also, the capsule parachutes will be even less steerable than the fairing's, so recovery will be even more difficult.

Not sure about that last bit; the problem with catching fairings is that the fairing itself acts as a wing with similar abilities to generate movement as the steerable parachute trying to guide it down. In contrast: even with the non-steerable chutes on top; Dragon flies like a brick.

I would think NASA n Spacex are 100% MKS internally and feet per second either to please press or because weather service still uses it.

Since the metric system is not the official standard of measurement for the United States, we are left with what we've always had. It's not to 'please the press' it's to make it so We, the Americans who paid for this flight and whom this flight is ultimately for, know what the wind speed is/was. Any standards set for official use are set by the U.S. congress and We shouldn't have to apologize for their continued inaction. It's out of our hands. I find it unlikely you'd see Trump suggesting such an audacious concept, nor anyone from his party daring to suggest it as well. We're stuck and that's that.

Decently accurate except for the unnecessary Trump bashing. It seems weird to bash the bad orange man when you did not bash Obama for failing to go metric. Or Bush. Or Gore, just kidding. Or Clinton or Bush.

We don’t have metric because senators blocked it the last time we tried. Now we are waiting for them to die off.

To be fair, the Reagan administration is the administration that deserves the blame regarding metric and the executive branch, not that the executive branch was solely responsible.

"The metrification board was abolished in 1982 by President Ronald Reagan"

Heh that precedes my coming to America. What a lucky break not adding one more president to the list.

So special demerit badge for Raygun. Thanks for participating badges for everyone after that failed to start the board up again.

If you don't want your brain to hurt don't read any of the non-science media regarding this test.

I like the NYT headline: SpaceX rocket explodes during safety test.

Fantastic for those that don’t then read the actual article! Really conveys the feeling of success and accuracy one expects from the failing New York Times. Still, it has kernels of accuracy, unlike Forbes with 5 articles per week titled "New iPhone disaster!"

Depending on the pace of cargo missions, they may be able to do the required testing with returning cargo Dragons. If they can assure NASA that a net recovery mishap won't result in a loss of return cargo, NASA will probably allow net tests for at least some of the returning capsules. The problem there is that a less than perfect recovery may result in an unusable Dragon.

The two things that surprise me most about this idea is that Crew Dragon is heavy, and they've already had problems with the arms on the existing nets.

Also, the capsule parachutes will be even less steerable than the fairing's, so recovery will be even more difficult.

Not sure about that last bit; the problem with catching fairings is that the fairing itself acts as a wing with similar abilities to generate movement as the steerable parachute trying to guide it down. In contrast: even with the non-steerable chutes on top; Dragon flies like a brick.

I wonder if some steering is possible if you could slightly reef individual chutes after full deployment? You just need to double the patterning so they are individually identifiable.

If you don't want your brain to hurt don't read any of the non-science media regarding this test.

I like the NYT headline: SpaceX rocket explodes during safety test.

Fantastic for those that don’t then read the actual article! Really conveys the feeling of success and accuracy one expects from the failing New York Times. Still, it has kernels of accuracy, unlike Forbes with 5 articles per week titled "New iPhone disaster!"

Yeah, NYT's was awful.

The Verge's headline is much better: "SpaceX successfully tests escape system on new spacecraft — while destroying a rocket"Apparently it's possible to include the destruction while properly conveying the gist.

Edit: The Guardian could do it too: "Crew capsule escape test a success as crowds watch rocket explode"

Fantastic for those that don’t then read the actual article! Really conveys the feeling of success and accuracy one expects from the failing New York Times. Still, it has kernels of accuracy, unlike Forbes with 5 articles per week titled "New iPhone disaster!"

It's just a continuation of NYT's century long tradition of trashing rocketry.Just ask Robert Goddard.

After multiple cargo deliveries for NASA, SpaceX successfully flew an enhanced crew capsule to the space station last March without anyone on board, but it exploded a month later during ground testing. The emergency escape thrusters — the kind used in Sunday’s test — had to be retooled. In all, SpaceX has tested these powerful Super Draco thrusters some 700 times.

During the post-conference Bridenstine did said the the maximum acceleration for Dragon was 3.5g going up and around 2.3g while going down. Elon elaborated further that Dragon is capable of 6-7g, but this is lowered for the safety of the astronauts.

In addition, there was question (paraphrasing) is NASA comfy with the scenario of exploding rocket with Dragon still attached to it.

Elon responded that the craft is designed to survive that fireball. It should emerge intact from it.

This whole thing about outrunning the fireball is a misconception anyway. The shockwave will always travel faster than any possible abort system, so the capsule has to ride it out. the abort system is mostly there to get it into a position where parachutes can be used, ie high and far away enough so the chutes don't get hit by debris and have enough time to open.

I guess the gentler trajectory is another advantage of a liquid abort system. A solid tower has to be set once whereas Elon mentioned the LAS on Dragon constantly reconfigures itself to the optimal abort trajectory.

The interesting thing for me was that Elon said it decides on the acceleration to use depending on what it thinks the problem is. So most cases would be gentle, but if it thinks it needs to gtfo at max acceleration it could.

So if the MECO command failed maybe it goes a bit faster or depending on where things are going wrong in the rocket it can adjust as well.

It’s kind of an interesting problem because you would also start to lose sensors as an accident unfolds. Probably not the kind of software algorithm that is publicly available though.

Question: the worst case scenario should be (I guess) just after MaxQ, when engines back to full power. But in this test the engines were powered off just before powering the escape system.

I understand that the procedures could provides to shut down the main engines before powering the escape system, but in critical situations (i.e. one of the last launch of the Soyuz) you can really waste precious seconds waiting? Or the power can be cut off really fast?

I know that I made a lot of assumption, this is the reason because I ask for an explanation

Thank you in advance!

All scenarios that could require the use of the abort motors are immediately preceded by at least a momentary loss of thrust, and that includes the booster blowing up.

No loss of thrust there, just thrust going in the wrong direction. Do you just ride the rocket into the ground? Or is there a way to remotely shut off the rockets long enough to power on the abort thrusters?

Question: the worst case scenario should be (I guess) just after MaxQ, when engines back to full power. But in this test the engines were powered off just before powering the escape system.

I understand that the procedures could provides to shut down the main engines before powering the escape system, but in critical situations (i.e. one of the last launch of the Soyuz) you can really waste precious seconds waiting? Or the power can be cut off really fast?

I know that I made a lot of assumption, this is the reason because I ask for an explanation

Thank you in advance!

All scenarios that could require the use of the abort motors are immediately preceded by at least a momentary loss of thrust, and that includes the booster blowing up.

No loss of thrust there, just thrust going in the wrong direction. Do you just ride the rocket into the ground? Or is there a way to remotely shut off the rockets long enough to power on the abort thrusters?

The engines were still installed right-side-up. So the control system would try to gimbal the rocket until it listed over (to try to fly down). At which point it would break up like today, or the rocket's path would have deviated so much from the planned route that the AFTS would have unzipped the rocket.

If you don't want your brain to hurt don't read any of the non-science media regarding this test.

I like the NYT headline: SpaceX rocket explodes during safety test.

Fantastic for those that don’t then read the actual article! Really conveys the feeling of success and accuracy one expects from the failing New York Times. Still, it has kernels of accuracy, unlike Forbes with 5 articles per week titled "New iPhone disaster!"

Yeah, NYT's was awful.

The Verge's headline is much better: "SpaceX successfully tests escape system on new spacecraft — while destroying a rocket"Apparently it's possible to include the destruction while properly conveying the gist.

Edit: The Guardian could do it too: "Crew capsule escape test a success as crowds watch rocket explode"

Even everyone's favorite networks to look down on both managed to do it right.

Daily Mail: "Incredible moment that SpaceX launches and then destroys a rocket in successful test of astronaut escape system - opening the way for crewed missions to the International Space Station by March"

If you don't want your brain to hurt don't read any of the non-science media regarding this test.

I like the NYT headline: SpaceX rocket explodes during safety test.

Fantastic for those that don’t then read the actual article! Really conveys the feeling of success and accuracy one expects from the failing New York Times. Still, it has kernels of accuracy, unlike Forbes with 5 articles per week titled "New iPhone disaster!"

Yeah, NYT's was awful.

The Verge's headline is much better: "SpaceX successfully tests escape system on new spacecraft — while destroying a rocket"Apparently it's possible to include the destruction while properly conveying the gist.

Edit: The Guardian could do it too: "Crew capsule escape test a success as crowds watch rocket explode"

Even everyone's favorite networks to look down on both managed to do it right.

Daily Mail: "Incredible moment that SpaceX launches and then destroys a rocket in successful test of astronaut escape system - opening the way for crewed missions to the International Space Station by March"

... even if one of them was excessively long winded.

If it gives you any comfort, the Daily Mail got the crewed mission NET date slightly wrong (Musk said that it'd probably happen in Q2, so between April and June).

If you don't want your brain to hurt don't read any of the non-science media regarding this test.

I like the NYT headline: SpaceX rocket explodes during safety test.

Fantastic for those that don’t then read the actual article! Really conveys the feeling of success and accuracy one expects from the failing New York Times. Still, it has kernels of accuracy, unlike Forbes with 5 articles per week titled "New iPhone disaster!"

Yeah, NYT's was awful.

The Verge's headline is much better: "SpaceX successfully tests escape system on new spacecraft — while destroying a rocket"Apparently it's possible to include the destruction while properly conveying the gist.

Edit: The Guardian could do it too: "Crew capsule escape test a success as crowds watch rocket explode"

Even everyone's favorite networks to look down on both managed to do it right.

Daily Mail: "Incredible moment that SpaceX launches and then destroys a rocket in successful test of astronaut escape system - opening the way for crewed missions to the International Space Station by March"